> THIS MESSAGE IS IN MIME FORMAT. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment Greetings from the rapidly chilling Canadian prairie! In the past year, I have encountered at least half a dozen 'name-brand' grand pianos that had replacement hammers installed. No tapering, tailing, coving and downweights consequently measured in the 75 - 95 gram range. These were O.E.M. parts with the correct model name stamped on hammer no. 1. Peculiar thing is that we had some of the original hammers (on shanks) which had much less felt mass and shorter moldings and when samples were re-installed, touchweight measurements were in the acceptable range. I am preparing to reduce hammer weight by the usual methods but feel the tails could be shortened by as much as 1/4". However, I believe this must be done with due consideration to the action geometry(?) I understand that at point of letoff, the end of the hammer tail should be about 1/16" above the top end of the backcheck, but on these pianos it could be a chicken/egg scenario. What if the backchecks are incorrectly installed? What is the correct relationship of hammer tail length to, say, hammer flange center height or any other fixed reference point? Regards, Stan Kroeker Registered Piano Technician ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/45/6b/ee/cc/attachment.htm ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC